Richard S. Kindred v. Allenby et al

Filing 102

FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for an Order of Protection be denied 100 signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 5/4/2022. Referred to Judge Dale A. Drozd; Objections to F&R due within 14-Days. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDON PRICE, et al.,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF
PROTECTION BE DENIED

Defendants.
(ECF No. 100)

16

OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, DUE WITHIN
FOURTEEN DAYS

17
18

Case No. 1:18-cv-00554-DAD-EPG (PC)

Plaintiff Richard Scott Kindred (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in

19
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is
20

Plaintiff’s “Notice of Amendment Motion and Amended Motion for an Order of Protection,”

21
which the Court construes as a motion for injunctive relief. (ECF No. 84.) For the reasons
22

discussed below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff’s motion be denied.

23
I.
24

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

Plaintiff’s motion, which was filed on March 16, 2022, states:

25
26
27
28

Pursuant to the previous Writ of Mandate, which the Court construed as a request
for preservation of evidence and for early discovery, which the Court denied. The
Magistrate Judge, the Honorable Erica P. Grosjean stated that her reason for the
denial was that there was a Federal Law, which imposes a duty to preserve
evidence before litigation begins and even before a discovery request. This duty
requires a litigant to preserve what it knows, or reasonably should know, will be
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

relevant evidence in a pending action or one in and even before a discovery
request. This duty requires a litigant to preserve what it knows, or reasonably
should know, will be relevant evidence in a pending action or one in a pending
action in the offering.
A party’s destruction of evidence qualifies as wilful spoliation if the party-has
‘some notice that the documents were potentially relevent to the litigantion before
they were destroyed.’ “One duty to preserve attaches, a litigant or potential litigant
“is required to suspend any existing policies related to deleting ordestroying
[evidence] and preserve all relevant [evidence] related to the litigation” and courts
may sanction parties responsible for spoliation of evidence. Plaintiff may trigger
the duty to preserve evidence by providing a notice of litigation to the California
Department of State Hospitals-Coalinga Hospital’s Litigation Coordinator. The
plaintiff requests that at a minimum that the C.D.S.H.-C Litigation Corrdinator be
reissued a Order that any further tampering, destroying and/or illegal search of
plaintiffs’ Native American Property Shall Not Take Place. Furthermore, That The
Defendants in this matter be sanctioned in the amount of $5,000.00 per occurange,
which shall be paid to plaintiff. In Addition to the forementioned action that a copy
of said order be served by the Marshalls on each and every employee of Unit 9 and
that said order be given to the Program Director and Assistant Program Director of
said program. Finally, that Joshua Boger be removed from Unit 9 permenantly and
that he shall be re-trained in the proper searching in accordance with the Hospitals’
Administrative Directive No. 820.
(ECF No. 100 at 1-3.) (Quotation marks, additions, and errors in original.)

14

Defendants did not file a response to the motion.

15

II.

16

“A federal court may issue an injunction if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties and

LEGAL STANDARDS FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

17

subject matter jurisdiction over the claim; it may not attempt to determine the rights of persons

18

not before the court.” Zepeda v. U.S. I.N.S., 753 F.2d 719, 727 (9th Cir. 1983). “A federal court is

19

without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance

20

with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.” Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986); accord S.E.C. v. Ross,

21

504 F.3d 1130, 1140 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[I]n order for the court to assert personal jurisdiction over

22

a party-in-interest, the party must be properly served.”). Relatedly, under Federal Rule of Civil

23

Procedure 65(d)(2), an injunction binds only “the parties to the action,” their “officers, agents,

24

servants, employees, and attorneys,” and “other persons who are in active concert or

25

participation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(A)-(C). “When a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based

26

on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not have the authority to issue an injunction.”

27

Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 2015).

28

An injunction must be “(1) directed to a party, (2) enforceable by contempt, and (3) designed to
2

1

accord or protect some or all of the substantive relief sought by a complaint in more than

2

preliminary fashion.” Orange Cnty. v. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., 52 F.3d 821, 825-

3

26 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

4

“To obtain a preliminary injunction, [a party] must show either (1) a likelihood of success

5

on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or (2) the existence of serious questions

6

going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipping in [the party’s] favor.” Nike, Inc. v.

7

McCarthy, 379 F.3d 576, 580 (9th Cir. 2004)

8
9

Requests for prospective relief are further limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A) of the
Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires that the Court find that the “relief [sought] is

10

narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right,

11

and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right.”

12

III.

13

The Court recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion.

14

First, Plaintiff requests various relief that appear to relate to preservation of evidence

15

and/or searches of Plaintiff’s property. This case is proceeding only on the following narrow

16

claims: 1) a Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant J. Corona for the June 2018 search and

17

seizure of Plaintiff’s black duffel bag, khaki duffel bag, spiritual blanket, television, and batteries;

18

2) a First Amendment free exercise claim against J. Corona for the June 2018 seizure of

19

Plaintiff’s black duffel bag; and 3) a First Amendment free exercise claim for injunctive relief

20

arising from the June 2018 seizure of Plaintiff’s ribbon shirt and deer skin trousers. (ECF Nos. 23,

21

95.) Here, Plaintiff does not describe any events related to the claims and defendants in this case.

22

Plaintiff’s motion largely quotes language from one of the Court’s prior orders concerning

23

spoliation of evidence and appears to have no relationship to the searches at issue here. As

24

Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief based on claim(s) not pled in the complaint, the Court will

25

recommend that Plaintiff’s motion be denied. Pac. Radiation Oncology, 810 F.3d at 633 (“When

26

a plaintiff seeks injunctive relief based on claims not pled in the complaint, the court does not

27

have the authority to issue an injunction.”).

28

DISCUSSION

Second, it is not clear whom Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief against. Plaintiff requests
3

1

that the Court issue an order to the Litigation Coordinator, all employees of Unit 9, the Program

2

Director, and the Assistant Program Director, and further requests that an individual named

3

Joshua Boger be removed from Unit 9. None of these individuals are defendants in this case. It is

4

improper to direct an injunction to individuals who are not parties to this action. See Orange

5

Cnty., 52 F.3d at 825-26.
Third, Plaintiff must show why the proposed injunction “is narrowly drawn, extends no

6
7

further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right, and is the least intrusive

8

means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal Right.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).

9

Here, Plaintiff quotes excerpts from one of the Court’s prior orders and requests various actions

10

related to spoliation of evidence and searches of his property without explaining the bases for

11

these requests. This is insufficient.
Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief be

12
13

denied.

14

IV.

15

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion for

16
17

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

injunctive relief (ECF No. 100) be DENIED.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States district judge

18

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen

19

(14) days after being served with these findings and recommendations, Plaintiff may file written

20

objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

21

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within

22

the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d

23

834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

Dated:

May 4, 2022

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
4